culebra:Here are 1000 words about how the night went for Romney/Republicans.

[i1159.photobucket.com image 850x471]

Spin away, but Romney just showed everyone what an easily perturbed asshole he is. We'd be invading Iran 5 minutes into his presidency. And that's only if he has to eat a sandwich first or something. Loose Cannon.

AdolfOliverPanties:Yep. Candy Crowley forced Romney to be uninformed about POTUS's comments in the Rose Garden. She also forced him to lie about seeking out women to put on his staff (heh heh, heh heh.)

Truly, she is history's greatest monster.

Crowley stated after Romney was right, but poorly worded. Please step out of your echo chamber.

She gave Obama a three minute speaking advantage (which he still biatched about) and interrupted Romney something like 20 more times than she did Obama. Not to mention some obviously planted questions.

Yeah, no bias there.

Despite all of that, polls show that Obama didn't win by all that much and Romney cleaned his clock on the most important subject (the economy). Even with the deck stacked in O's favor he still couldn't pull out the sort of momentum swinging victory he needed.

Brubold:) and interrupted Romney something like 20 more times than she did Obama.

She did her job. Romney went off-topic/off-question and over each time limit respectively.

biased questionsDebatable, but even if they were - it's bloody New York. Their undecideds aren't southern undecideds (i.e. "I'm undecided but still probably going to vote GOP"); their questions aren't going to be targetting Obama.

I still can't believe people are trying to sell the one guy's question ("Obama, you promised X, but now my life looks worse than ever..." and so on) as anti-Romney.

MyRandomName:AdolfOliverPanties: Yep. Candy Crowley forced Romney to be uninformed about POTUS's comments in the Rose Garden. She also forced him to lie about seeking out women to put on his staff (heh heh, heh heh.)

Truly, she is history's greatest monster.

Crowley stated after Romney was right, but poorly worded. Please step out of your echo chamber.

So can you show where Obama said it was NOT an act of terrorism like Romney pretends?

Hollie Maea:I think Romney is in a bit of trouble in regards to the final debate. The only topic that snap poll responders scored him good on last night was the economy (apparently undecided voters like platitudes...who knew?). But the final debate will only be on foreign policy topics, so Mitt will be hard pressed to spend the whole time bleating about the economy.

Oh, that's easy.

"That's a great question about the Arab Spring, but I'd like to go back to last week's debate question about how awful Obama has been for the economy."

"That wasn't even one of the questions last week."

"Well, it SHOULD have been. Anyway...about that Obama failing us on the economy thing..."

CPennypacker:HeartBurnKid: CPennypacker: Yeah. Complaining about the moderator means you know you lost. Suck it up.

Lehrer did genuinely suck, though.

But somehow the liberal pundits still admitted Obama lost

Hell Chris Matthews almost had a meltdown on live television.

With Lehrer, everyone was observing that Lehrer sucked, but no one was spinning that as a factor in the debate. Republicans were saying that Romney won and that Lehrer sucked. Democrats were saying that Romney won and that Lehrer sucked.

sammyk:If Romney actually had anything of substance to say last night it would be all over the news. Instead we get this.

I think I will actually listen to Rush today just to hear him cry

So by your assertion, Obama stated nothing of substance either. Good to know.

Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

MyRandomName:Crowley stated after Romney was right, but poorly worded. Please step out of your echo chamber.

Romney said that the Obama camp did not call it an act of terror.You can, in fact, look up his statements - where directly refers to it as an act of terror.

To conflate "act of terror" and terrorism is disengenious, true, but Romney did not say terrorism. Obama caught him on a technicality, and instead of flipping this on Obama - reiterating that the point was terrorism, not the specific wording - he chose to double down and had it shoved in his face.

Romney had a lot of room to manuever because Obama isn't free to discuss extremely confidential security issues - he's bound by his presidency in that regard. Yet Romney still farked that up.

Look at how RED Romney's eyes are in that picture, like he didn't get a wink of sleep the night before the debate due to intense worry/violent butt rash. Imagine this snippy little tyrant when he gets the 3AM call.

Brubold:Hollie Maea: I think Romney is in a bit of trouble in regards to the final debate. The only topic that snap poll responders scored him good on last night was the economy (apparently undecided voters like platitudes...who knew?). But the final debate will only be on foreign policy topics, so Mitt will be hard pressed to spend the whole time bleating about the economy. He's at a decided disadvantage when it comes to foreign policy; the only foreign policy topic for which some considered him to have an advantage was Libya, and he shat the bed with that one last night.

Conservative commentators are already howling about how much it sucks for the final debate to be on foreign policy.

Actually now Romney gets to revisit the Libya situation again and this time he has quotes from Anderson Cooper, Politico, and even Crowley that back up his statement on the situation. Obama talked about how bad it was for Romney to try and score political points over the attack all while Obama was trying to paint a narrative that made him look blameless before the election.

Counterpoint: Obama will probably kill the terrorists responsible for the attack 4 hours before the debate. Cause that's how he rolls.

Snarky Acronym:Romney is incredibly thin skinned. I can't imagine him going head-to-head with an adversarial head of state. He's never had anyone stand up to him his entire life as Obama did last night. It's totally threw him off his game. Closest he's ever gotten to somebody that looks like Obama is the guy that shines his shoes. He can't fathom why he can't win against Obama, it's beyond his belief system.

It is kind of unbelievable to think that a black man could beat a white almost-protestant business fella in American politics. If I told you that would be the case in... sh*t... 2000, you'd call me insane.

MyRandomName:sammyk: If Romney actually had anything of substance to say last night it would be all over the news. Instead we get this.

I think I will actually listen to Rush today just to hear him cry

So by your assertion, Obama stated nothing of substance either. Good to know.

Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

www.romneytaxplan.com - Because only 53% of Americans matter, fark the other 47%.

MyRandomName:Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

Obama covered that in some detail last night. closing loopholes, punishing companies who move jobs out of the country/rewarding companies who bring jobs back AND making it illegal for corporations to hide money overseas to dodge US taxes.

MyRandomName:Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

Snarky Acronym:Another thing I noticed was that Obama was really laser sharp. He didn't stammer and hmm and uh a lot like he has in the past when he's had to think on his feet. It was remarkable turn around.

for those of you NOT on my twitter feed...MSNBC is promising a 'body language' expert who will give us some insights into last night's debate. the newscasters keep walking RIGHT UP to a joke about Obama's five point palm exploding heart technique...but keep failing to make the connection.

MyRandomName:sammyk: If Romney actually had anything of substance to say last night it would be all over the news. Instead we get this.

I think I will actually listen to Rush today just to hear him cry

So by your assertion, Obama stated nothing of substance either. Good to know.

Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

There is a clear difference. Many of us in the middle class fear that Romny's secret magic is "fark the middle class and lower taxes for the wealthy". We aren't sure what Obama's plan is either but we are pretty clear it isn't "fark the middle class and lower taxes for the wealthy" so he gets to get away with less scrutiny.

Philip Francis Queeg:MyRandomName: Why aren't liberals asking what Obama's specific plan to get 1 million manufacturing jobs is? You would expect then to ask the guy actually in government what his detailed policy is before the guy who is outside and will need to work with congressional leaders to formulate a plan... but that would require being logically consistent which fark liberals are incapable of.

Anerican Job Act

Ah, I see you're trying to combat GOP views with reason. Here's how this is going to go:

Them: "0bama doesn't have a plan!"You: "Here's a link to his detailed plan."Them: "He's spending money we don't have!"You: "...but he has a plan. This is different from you saying he doesn't have a plan."Them: "Benghazi!"

Snarky Acronym:He didn't stammer and hmm and uh a lot like he has in the past when he's had to think on his feet.

Really? Not as much as before, sure, but the one thing I noticed is that both him AND Biden stuttered and stammered a lot. Particularly at one point where he was trying to point out that Romney was treading offtopic and dangerously over time - there was an "a-a-a" stutter that lasted at least 20 syllables.

Not that it's even relevant to the points they made or how well they hammered their opponents overall.

With Lehrer, everyone was observing that Lehrer sucked, but no one was spinning that as a factor in the debate. Republicans were saying that Romney won and that Lehrer sucked. Democrats were saying that Romney won and that Lehrer sucked.

There were a few right-wing shills on Fark who accused the "libtards" of "working the refs".

xanadian:I'm afraid this is one of those instances where I'll have to side with the conservatards...

Check out the timeline further down in the article. Sure, he mentions "terror" on Sept. 12, but refuses to tie in the Libya incident as a terrorist attack on Sept. 25.

According to the article, anyway.

He himself accused Obama, at least twice, of not calling it an "act of terror" - those are the words he used - and that's what he got called out for by the moderator (at Obama's insistence). The other stupid points he was raising don't matter as far as this particular exchange was concerned. He was wrong about something which could have trivial in the broader scope of whatever dumbass argument he was making - it was his own decision to try make some big point out of it that turned it into the highlight of this debate (indeed, probably of all three debates thus far).

tomcatadam:Snarky Acronym: He didn't stammer and hmm and uh a lot like he has in the past when he's had to think on his feet.

Really? Not as much as before, sure, but the one thing I noticed is that both him AND Biden stuttered and stammered a lot. Particularly at one point where he was trying to point out that Romney was treading offtopic and dangerously over time - there was an "a-a-a" stutter that lasted at least 20 syllables.

Not that it's even relevant to the points they made or how well they hammered their opponents overall.

My favorite Romney stutter of the debate was "He's great as a - as a - a - a - as a speaker".

"DID I SAY TO BRING UP THE '36 DUESENBURG, PORTERHOUSE? THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? I ALWAYS DRIVE THE '47 ROLLS ON TUESDAYS! YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING THAT! HURRY WITH THAT, AND IF I SEE SO MUCH AS A SPOT ON THE LEATHER INTERIOR, I SWEAR TO GOD..."

It is a serious problem that people actually use this "generic comment about terror, not specifically calling it a terrorist act" logic.

The problem is much larger than this specific instance. It happens all the time and (yes) with people of many different beliefs. This is not to say they all do it equally, and it is clear that this has been a major problem in the thinking of the modern day Republican party.

This type of logic is an "avoidance obsession". What happens is that someone facing a thought that would bring discomfort will expand all of the events around that thought. They will look around wildly as if it were all under a microscope, which throws out any contextual continuity and focuses entirely on a "small field of view". Then, they will look for a way to interpret any event around the thought in a way that brings some harmony to their desires and avoids cognitive dissonance. Once found, they can keep the tight focus on this very narrowly interpreted event and anytime they face the broaching of the subject causing the discomforting conclusions, they leap to the "happy place" they have found nearby.

So, when the President points out that he called the actions terroristic immediately, he is telling a truth that doesn't fit into the whole narrative that was being developed. It doesn't contradict that the administration suggested for some time that it was a spontaneous attack for reasons unrelated to US policy, which is the core outrage being attempted, and an open minded person who had not committed a worldview to the idea could easily take this information and still have questions about why there were these public professions of cause different from what was later revealed. But some people have made that commitment and inserted associated stories into their narrative that are threatened by the simple act of point out that the president called it an act of terror. Now, no thinking person would misunderstand "acts of terror" and "terrorist acts" as being vastly different references to the type of act perpetrated - in our modern world, these refer to violent, often deadly, acts used to promote some message and inflict fear on those with other beliefs or political goals. But just saying they are different allows a thought process where it is believed that again the President is lying and he can't be trusted and he didn't refer to them as terrorism and there is a big difference between a terrorist group like Al Qaeda and a mob inflicting terror and... so the outrage can continue and one doesn't need to concede anything.

Of course, when you actually consider the whole events, that there apparently was some information early on that it was a coordinated attack and there were mostly unrelated members of the administration making the few comments about it being due to the video, and eventually it was stated more bluntly that it was not, a few potential scenarios come to mind. This includes things like not wanting to blame any organisations or give certain organisations notoriety without proof, or possibly there were counter-intelligence operations underway that required the organisation that perpetrated the attack to believe it was not suspected, or possibly the intelligence community was weighing the potential explanations before committing to the administration, ... Many of the scenarios don't actually involve anything that people would be outraged about from the administration if the details came out. But it's hard to see what the political advantage would be to, say, simply lying (which I have seen suggested), and it doesn't seem like incompetence is being played as the primary source of anger here. The security detail was obviously incompetent, but there appear to be other reasons not being mentioned for why this is taken as such a negative moment.

When you see actions like this hyperfocus, it makes it clear that a large component of this talk about the Benghazi attacks is just trying to find some narrative which puts the administration in a bad light, beyond any actual analysis of what actually occurred. And that's why this type of action is such a serious problem. People in general find it far too easy to justify their worldviews by excluding data and using a variety of avoidance obsessions to prevent any real communication.